A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down TR010025 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Volume 1 6 Appendix 8.7B Aquatic macrophyte survey River Till APFP Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 October 2018 Technical Note A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Subject: River Till Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Surveys Date Date: 03 August 2017 16 August 2017 amended: Copies: HE551506-AA-EWE-SWI-SU-YE-000006 P04 Prepared by: Ian Morrissey/Ellie Derbyshire 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview Aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys were undertaken at six sites on the River Till, to provide a baseline of the existing health and structure of the communities present. These surveys will inform the environmental assessment and any design mitigation/compensation that may be required. The data will also provide a baseline for future construction monitoring. Figure 1 shows the sections of the River Till surveyed and locations from which macroinvertebrate samples were collected. For each of the Winterbourne Stoke A303 bypass options (northern and southern) the survey reaches were contiguous, extending 500m upstream of the proposed crossing location, and for 1km downstream, with a sample collected from a representative location within each 500m reach ( Table 1). HE551506-AA-EWE-SWI-SU-YE-000006 P04 PAGE 1 OF 13 Technical Note A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Figure 1: River Till macroinvertebrate reach and sampling locations (red markers) Table 1: River reach NGR and macroinvertebrate sampling site location Survey reach Upstream NGR Downstream NGR Macroinvertebrate Description sampling point NGR T1r SU 08202 41752 SU 07827 41506 SU 08085 41591 Northern bypass – T2r SU 07827 41506 SU 07807 41109 SU 07824 41162 500m upstream and 1km T3r SU 07807 41109 SU 07518 40865 SU 07717 40910 downstream T4r SU 07649 40501 SU 07642 40031 SU 07661 40203 Southern bypass – T5r SU 07642 40031 SU 07726 39588 SU 07726 39782 500m upstream and 1km T6r SU 07726 39588 SU 07272 39518 SU 07598 39554 downstream 2 Methods 2.1 Field survey and laboratory identification Aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys were undertaken on the 24th May 2017. A representative macroinvertebrate sampling site was identified within each of the six survey reaches. At each site a standardised sample was collected in accordance with RIVPACS1 sampling protocols. This method involved the use of a standard pond net (1mm mesh size) to collect macroinvertebrates by employing kicking and sweeping motions over a three-minute period. In addition, the full suite of environmental variables required to generate RIVPACS2 community predictions were also recorded for each sampling site. Thus ensuring that, should a full site classification be required in future, the data collected was fit for this purpose. The samples were preserved in alcohol in the field and returned to the laboratory for species/mixed level identification (RIVPACS IV Taxonomic Level 42). 2.2 Post survey analysis A number of biotic indices were calculated from the macroinvertebrate data collected. The aim of calculating these indices is to provide information on the macroinvertebrate communities’ sensitivity to organic pollution, changes in river flow, habitat 1 EU Star UK (2006) RIVPACS Macroinvertebrate Sampling Protocol. Available at: http://www.eu- star.at/pdf/RivpacsMacroinvertebrateSamplingProtocol.pdf 2 Available at: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/16550/2/SNIFFER_WFD72C_RICT_Final_Report_-_Davy- Bowker,_Clarke_et_al_2008.pdf HE551506-AA-EWE-SWI-SU-YE-000006 P04 PAGE 2 OF 13 Technical Note A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down modification and siltation. The following section outlines the methods used to calculate each score and the outputs from each biotic index. 2.3 Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP), Average Score per Taxon (ASPT) and Number of Scoring Macroinvertebrate Taxa (NTAXA) These indices were developed primarily as a means of assessing water quality and do not necessarily correlate intimately with conservation importance. They are underpinned by Pressure Sensitivity (PS) scores, based on tolerance to organic pollutants. These are assigned at a family level ranging from 1 (extremely tolerant) to 10 (extremely sensitive). The scores have been refined since their initial development; however the method of their calculation has not changed. BMWP is the sum of PS scores for all scoring* macroinvertebrate families recorded in a given sample. Theoretically, a site with good water quality should result in a higher BMWP than a site with poor water quality. Commonly used BMWP interpretation bands are presented in Table 2. NTAXA is simply the number of scoring taxa (families) recorded in the sample. ASPT is the BMWP divided by NTAXA, and is less influenced by seasonal community changes. ASPT is the most appropriate index of the three by which to monitor a site over time. *Not all macroinvertebrate families have an assigned PS score. Table 2: Interpretation of BMWP score BMWP score Water quality interpretation 151+ Very High 101-150 High 51-100 Good 17-50 Moderate 0-16 Poor 2.4 Whalley, Hawkes, Paisley and Trigg (WHPT) The WHPT metric improves on the BMWP method by including a larger data set of reference sites and the addition of an abundance measure to provide a more robust assessment technique. However, the principle of using macroinvertebrate families as biological indicators still remains. WHPT enables the assessment of macroinvertebrates according to WFD requirements in relation to organic pollution, but also responds to toxic pollution and other degradation sources. Similar to BMWP, PS scores are allocated at a family level. However, each PS score also contains an abundance measure (Table 3). This takes into account the density at which a taxon is present in a sample resulting in an increase in metric sensitivity to changes in macroinvertebrate assemblage structure. The sum of the PS scores for all scoring taxa gives the WHPT. HE551506-AA-EWE-SWI-SU-YE-000006 P04 PAGE 3 OF 13 Technical Note A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down WHPT ASPT is calculated in the same way as for BMWP, by dividing the WHPT score by the number of scoring taxa (WPHT NTAXA). As with BMWP scoring, a higher WHPT is indicative of higher water quality and lower levels of environmental degradation. As a general rule WHPT scores can be broadly interpreted using Table 2. Although the WHPT values are reported in the results section, the assessment of community response to organic pollution has been described with reference to BMWP scores only. 2.5 Community Conservation Index (CCI) The CCI accounts for both community richness and the relative rarity of macroinvertebrate species present. It utilises BMWP and the conservation status of individual species. Species are assigned a Conservation Score (CS) in accordance with Table 3 as defined by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) accepted designations. Table 3: Conservation Scores for freshwater macroinvertebrate species in Great Britain Conservation Definition Score 10 RDB1 (Endangered) 9 RDB2 (Vulnerable) 8 RDB3 (Rare) 7 Notable (but not RDB status) 6 Regionally Notable 5 Local 4 Occasional (species not in categories 10–5, which occur in up to 10% of all samples from similar habitats) 3 Frequent (species not in categories 10–5, which occur in >10–25% of all samples from similar habitats) 2 Common (species not in categories 10–5, which occur in >25–50% of all samples from similar habitats) 1 Very Common (species not in categories 10–5, which occur in >50–100% of all samples from similar habitats) The sum of CSs is calculated and divided by the number of contributing species. This is then multiplied by a Community Score (CoS) determined either by the rarest taxon present or the BMWP (whichever results in the higher CoS) with reference to Table 4. The resulting CCI score can then be interpreted with respect to the Table 5. Table 4: Community Score (CoS) categories BMWP Community Score (CoS) Highest CS (CSmax) >301 15 10 251-300 12 9 HE551506-AA-EWE-SWI-SU-YE-000006 P04 PAGE 4 OF 13 Technical Note A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down 201-250 10 8 151-200 7 7 101-150 5 5 or 6 51-100 3 3 or 4 1-50 1 1 or 2 0 0 Scoring taxa absent Table 5: CCI interpretation CCI Description Conservation Value 0.0 to 5.0 Sites supporting only common species and/or a Low community of low taxon richness. >5.0 to Sites supporting at least one species of restricted Moderate 10.0 distribution and/or a community of moderate taxon richness. >10.0 to Sites supporting at least one uncommon species, or Fairly High 15.0 several species of restricted distribution and/or a community of high taxon richness. >15.0 to Sites supporting several uncommon species, at least High 20.0 one of which may be nationally rare and/or a community of high taxon richness. >20.0 Sites supporting several rarities, including species of Very High national importance, or at least one extreme rarity (potentially of (e.g. taxa included in the British RDBs) and/or a national community of very high taxon richness. significance and may merit statutory protection) 2.6 Lotic Invertebrate Flow Evaluation (LIFE) Lotic Invertebrate Flow Evaluation (LIFE) scores were calculated to give an indication of each macroinvertebrate community’s sensitivity to changes in flow. Species are assigned to a flow group depending on their documented flow preferences (current velocity) ranging from I (Rapid) to VI (Drought Resistant). This has also been undertaken at a family level; however the use of family level data may result in the loss of precision as a number of families contain species with wide-ranging flow requirements. Family level LIFE scores are reported in the result section, but assessment of community response to flow has been described with reference to the species level LIFE score. Additionally, ubiquitous taxa such as Chironomidae and Oligochaeta are not used in the method as their abundance appears to have no definitive relationship with flow.